Individual rights v. governent intervention

[sudden valley gunner]

Please bear with me. This may be my feeble attempt to nudge the conversation back OT. So, I'll go way back to your first post Grape.

"Royal you/your" used below.

It will take some time and thought, but start crossing off the list provided at the below link, every unnecessary (in your view) department in the federal government.

You may be surprised at how less "interventionist" the feds become when their girth is trimmed dramatically. Their "new found respect" for your rights may not be anything more complicated than they no longer have the ability to intervene in your affairs. The result will be that you must be a wee bit more careful when you approach your fellow citizen in voluntary interactions. When the feds are no longer there to be called upon, by you, to coerce your fellow citizen to concede to your desires, you are now in a position of having to back up your desires with your own gumption.

http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/

The better system is letting people handle it without the state. There is no replacing necessary.

 

[J_dazzle23]

It was an analogy of a state problem compared to another state problem.

The state makes the problem worse, by not allowing people to sell their kidneys.

The topic is individual rights vs government intervention.....you have no right to make kidney selling illegal.

Still waiting for you to answer how they are going to enforce beliefs without their state?

Again, most people are not deciding to not sell a kidney based on the legality of it. The kidney "black market" is from stolen kidneys, not people voluntarily selling them.

Do you have data showing that there are active groups of people trying to voluntarily sell their kidney?

Also, the theory is not duplicable. It is not in any way universal. The logic of saying that something should NOT be illegal because it motivates more people to break the law doesn't always apply. For example, outlawing weed has done only harm. It has created millions of unneeded felons. But otoh, I don't think outlawing theft or armed robbery has created more actual theft or armed robbery.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Again, most people are not deciding to not sell a kidney based on the legality of it. The kidney "black market" is from stolen kidneys, not people voluntarily selling them.

Do you have data showing that there are active groups of people trying to voluntarily sell their kidney?

Also, the theory is not duplicable. It is not in any way universal. The logic of saying that something should NOT be illegal because it motivates more people to break the law doesn't always apply. For example, outlawing weed has done only harm. It has created millions of unneeded felons. But otoh, I don't think outlawing theft or armed robbery has created more actual theft or armed robbery.

LOL...data...market must be free even for kidneys. It is obfuscation to think that making it illegal isn't providing or adding to a "black" market. If the price is high enough people will sell. Doesn't mean there still won't be theft and murder just maybe not as much.

So still waiting how are people going to enforce their beliefs without the state?

 

[OC for ME]

The better system is letting people handle it without the state. There is no replacing necessary.

Better? Prove it...I've read those books too, by the way.

My point is, very much less government availability forces us to be a wee bit nicer during our volunteerism.

The "wild west" was fairly devoid of government intervention, as an more recent example, but, "we" knew that the threat of government intervening in the future if our interactions get out of hand remained.

Going further back, 100 years or so, the frontier was devoid of any government intervention at all, for all practical purposes, and yet government was still "available" if you needed it to mediate/mitigate...but nobody counted on it.

Folks worked things out, neighbors tended to band together to mitigate "unlawful" aggression. Citizen justice, if you will, a "we know what is right and what is wrong." This, usually, attempted to be fair and impartial. I believe that folks, generally, want to be fair, impartial, and do the right thing. I think they tried back in the day and got it right far more often than they got it wrong. Knowing that government may not be there when you need it, to protect you from the consequences of your "unlawful" acts, is/was a very motivating factor in not resorting to aggression to get your way.

On the other hand, knowing that government is close at hand to "aggress" against your neighbor, via government aggression, is how unchecked government aggression is subjected upon each of us.

 

[J_dazzle23]

LOL...data...market must be free even for kidneys. It is obfuscation to think that making it illegal isn't providing or adding to a "black" market. If the price is high enough people will sell. Doesn't mean there still won't be theft and murder just maybe not as much.

So still waiting how are people going to enforce their beliefs without the state?

Your "beliefs" are that you have rights that should not be violated.

See what I did there? Belief is pretty vague term. I'm also not advocating enforcement of beliefs by the state.

I'm giving an example (abortion) of a conflict that must be resolved through enforcement, thus far.

Because ya know....some people BELIEVE abortion is murder and a violation of the right to life.

I'm not going to play the "making something illegal creates a black market so don't make anything illegal" game. That's a case by case basis and you know that.

 

[HP995]

Your "beliefs" are that you have rights that should not be violated.

Exactly!

If another group decides law of the jungle makes sense, and it's okay to prey on other people, then what?

Try sitting down to chat with ISIS about it. :lol:

This is too gullible...I think I discovered where all the hippies went to!

 

[OC for ME]

Your "beliefs" are that you have rights that should not be violated.

...

Really? Your "belief" is that some rights are rightly subject to violating? SVG did not state anything near what you contend above.

As long as you are not compelled to adhere to/follow his belief(s), via aggression (from government), then his premise is sound and yours is not, re the retort quoted above.

SVG don't want a government, no big deal, except to a few folks it seems.

My take on his position. Not "talking" to him via your post, I'm addressing the quoted post above.

SVG continues to peaceably interact with other folks, voluntarily, and believe it or not, likely interacts with government too. If SVG had his druthers he'd druther not be compelled (under penalty of violent physical force, or financial harm) to interact at all with government, not that he wants government completely eliminated, some folks want government and he recognizes this and respects their choice.

I'll even go so far as to think that SVG, being relieved (free to no to) of having to interact with government from time to time, involuntarily, would likely still interact with government, but only on his terms. If SVG desires to (voluntarily that is) interact with government SVG would honor and abide by governments terms of service. If SVG don't like the terms of service he can walk away and no one, not even government is harmed.

Not a bad state of affairs if you ask me. If he wants to use "government" services (roads) he can pay on a per use basis if he wants. Why do folks have a problem with this concept.

Now, if I have completely mischaracterized SVG's position then I will certainly be open to his correction(s).

 

[J_dazzle23]

Really? Your "belief" is that some rights are rightly subject to violating? SVG did not state anything near what you contend above.

As long as you are not compelled to adhere to/follow his belief(s), via aggression (from government), then his premise is sound and yours is not, re the retort quoted above.

SVG don't want a government, no big deal, except to a few folks it seems.

My take on his position. Not "talking" to him via your post, I'm addressing the quoted post above.

SVG continues to peaceably interact with other folks, voluntarily, and believe it or not, likely interacts with government too. If SVG had his druthers he'd druther not be compelled (under penalty of violent physical force, or financial harm) to interact at all with government, not that he wants government completely eliminated, some folks want government and he recognizes this and respects their choice.

I'll even go so far as to think that SVG, being relieved (free to no to) of having to interact with government from time to time, involuntarily, would likely still interact with government, but only on his terms. If SVG desires to (voluntarily that is) interact with government SVG would honor and abide by governments terms of service. If SVG don't like the terms of service he can walk away and no one, not even government is harmed.

Not a bad state of affairs if you ask me. If he wants to use "government" services (roads) he can pay on a per use basis if he wants. Why do folks have a problem with this concept.

Now, if I have completely mischaracterized SVG's position then I will certainly be open to his correction(s).

Not at all! My point is that there are some blurry lines about what constitutes violation and what constitutes a right. For example the abortion issue.

Trying to use a broad term like "belief" doesn't really do the topic justice imo.

I certainly do NOT believe that there are god given rights that are or should be rightly subject to violating. Sorry if that's how it came off.

 

[OC for ME]

Not at all! My point is that there are some blurry lines about what constitutes violation and what constitutes a right. For example the abortion issue.

Trying to use a broad term like "belief" doesn't really do the topic justice imo.

I certainly do NOT believe that there are god given rights that are or should be rightly subject to violating. Sorry if that's how it came off.

I know what you point is. You did not address SVG's point. you are certainly free not to address his point.

So still waiting how are people going to enforce their beliefs without the state?

To maintain context, how would a anti-abortion advocate enforce their belief, no abortions, on a citizen who is pro-abortion without the threat of government force (coercion) to aggress against the pro-abortion citizen?

That is SVG's entire premise, I think. To be free from any aggression for opting out of any government/private interactions.

 

[J_dazzle23]

To maintain context, how would a anti-murder advocate enforce their belief, no murders, on a citizen who is pro-murder without the threat of government force (coercion) to aggress against the pro-murder citizen?

I hope you don't mind me Changing your quote. I did this because according to millions of people, this is how they see it. This is something that would have to be figured out, and I don't really think that all the people that see it as murder are going to just roll over on the subject.

 

[OC for ME]

I hope you don't mind me Changing your quote. I did this because according to millions of people, this is how they see it. This is something that would have to be figured out, and I don't really think that all the people that see it as murder are going to just roll over on the subject.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is abortion murder? Sure it is, after a point in time, in my opinion. I do not advocate that former moms be prosecuted for the murder of their formally viable human being.

But, some (all) governments have charged folks (third party) who caused the death (involuntary abortion?) of a mother's unborn child and those governments seem to be fine with this contradiction. Should a mother who engages in behavior that directly leads to the death of their unborn child be prosecuted as would be/is a third party? Why does the state claim to speak for the unborn in some cases and not in other cases?

Is the right to life violated? Whose right was violated? The mother's or the unborn child's?

When government compels you to adhere to/follow my beliefs the government is intervening where it should not.

 

[J_dazzle23]

I'm not sure what you mean. Is abortion murder? Sure it is, after a point in time, in my opinion. I do not advocate that former moms be prosecuted for the murder of their formally viable human being.

But, some (all) governments have charged folks (third party) who caused the death (involuntary abortion?) of a mother's unborn child and those governments seem to be fine with this contradiction. Should a mother who engages in behavior that directly leads to the death of their unborn child be prosecuted as would be/is a third party? Why does the state claim to speak for the unborn in some cases and not in other cases?

Is the right to life violated? Whose right was violated? The mother's or the unborn child's?

When government compels you to adhere to/follow my beliefs the government is intervening where it should not.

You have asked questions that probably need answers to. But the answers are not so clear cut as something like Marijuana prohibition, etc. Belief on what constitutes a life is much higher stakes, and cannot be simply chalked up to enforcing your beliefs on someone else. Imo.

You stated that you believe that after a point in time, abortion is murder. You didn't specify, so I'll just speculate, for examples sake. Lets say you believe that a 7 month abortion is murder. Would you be enforcing others into your belief if you were to force them, against their will, to not have that abortion? Or would you be protecting right to life for that baby?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

But in this case, you miss the point again.

It would seem that I consistently missed the points that you were making... I think that I did so honestly, I wasn't just trying to nitpick. Why I am consistently missing your points, I'm not sure, but as a courtesy, and in an effort to not continue to miss the point, I'll drop dialogue on it unless I can find enough time to analyze the discussion more closely. Thanks for taking the time to try and clarify your points for me.

 

[OC for ME]

You have asked questions that probably need answers to. But the answers are not so clear cut as something like Marijuana prohibition, etc. Belief on what constitutes a life is much higher stakes, and cannot be simply chalked up to enforcing your beliefs on someone else. Imo.

You stated that you believe that after a point in time, abortion is murder. You didn't specify, so I'll just speculate, for examples sake. Lets say you believe that a 7 month abortion is murder. Would you be enforcing others into your belief if you were to force them, against their will, to not have that abortion? Or would you be protecting right to life for that baby?

Read my post, that you quote, again. The answer to your questions are contained therein. Please focus on my last statement in that post.

Please do not dilute the discussion, which is/should be, focused on Individual rights v. governent intervention.

My position cannot be made any more clear regarding both positions held by those responding in this thread.

 

[J_dazzle23]

Read my post, that you quote, again. The answer to your questions are contained therein. Please focus on my last statement in that post.

Please do not dilute the discussion, which is/should be, focused on Individual rights v. governent intervention.

My position cannot be made any more clear regarding both positions held by those responding in this thread.

I'm not trying to dilute it. I was asked a direct question and answered it.

If we have gotten OT due to me, apologies.

 

[OC for ME]

I'm not trying to dilute it. I was asked a direct question and answered it.

If we have gotten OT due to me, apologies.

No apologies required. I only stayed with abortion to explain my position using the parameters you set.

The power of government must not be used to interfere in the affairs of citizens interacting peaceably. Whether I ask the government to interfere, or the government interferes of its own volition...ever.

Those that do not have a voice must have a advocate even if the only advocate remaining, the very last resort, is government.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

This (abortion) is one of those rare areas where it's not crystal clear what is right and wrong.
But as I am not 100% sure, I certainly don't feel comfortable unleashing the violence of the state in response. Therefore I err on the side of caution and support NOT impeding their freedom to abort.

 

[KBCraig]

This is the sum of the argument to practicality:

 

[HP995]

I certainly don't feel comfortable unleashing the violence of the state in response. Therefore I err on the side of caution and support NOT impeding their freedom to abort.

Hogwash!

If people want to avoid violence and force as they claim....

A) Allow abortion: 100% chance of violence against the child. 100% chance of physical force used, attempting to prevent child from living a normal life.

B) Prevent abortion: Very small chance of any physical force being needed. Simply give the clinic/doctor notice that it's not legal here. Chain the clinic doors if necessary.

Which is more likely, A or B, to minimize violence in the case of abortion?

 

[Citizen]

This is the sum of the argument to practicality:

Well said.

I think today we can take it even further. Run "government" long enough in one jurisdiction, and you arrive at the point where not just some but lots of people will--people (voters and lobbyists) in this country now use government to:

Steal: redistribute wealth--in all the many forms that takes with voters. Just one small example, the Seattle councilwoman whose pet project, now realized, was a high minimum wage.

Defraud: Bankers, banking system, financial system. If hanging taxpayers and people forced to use the dollar with bailouts and fractional reserve banking isn't fraud, I don't know what is.

Kidnap: Tons of malum pro se laws, the war on drugs, etc, etc., etc.

Its not just some people anymore in this country; its lots of people. Hell, we even have a whole industry dedicated to working within the organized theft: tax companies like H&R Block and so forth.